JW Insider

I am not saying that the GB tell lies. It's very easy to get caught up in a style of speaking and writing as if we know we must be right and that only our current explanation is correct.
Doctrines are NOT promoted because a member of the GB (or Writing Dept) is thinking about whether a certain doctrine might be right or wrong, it's just that they have already accepted that it MUST be right because people before them presented it as if it must be right. If we are "puppets" that follow along without questioning, then so have been most members of the GB. They follow the persons who came before because they never saw a reason not to. If our doctrines are obviously correct about Trinity, Hellfire, Neutrality, New Earth, Preaching, God's Name, etc., then our more questionable doctrines (Blood, Chronology, Higher Education, etc) must also be absolutely right by default. The GB would have no more reason to question them than we would. What makes some doctrines finally get questioned and corrected is almost always the inability to answer a specific question about that doctrine that gets sent to the Society.
But sometimes such questions are TOO disturbing and will not be dealt with, except by looking for reasons to punish the person who asked, and I would have to admit that this reaction is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is how some humans have always reacted to those who would question established traditions.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of humility to make changes to long-established ("deeply entrenched") doctrines. It doesn't mean that we or they (GB) were lying when we accepted and promoted the former doctrines. We just weren't "making sure of all things." More and more changes of this nature have been made in the last 10 to 20 years, and they are tending to clear up many of the doctrinal inconsistencies.

For an actor, timing is very important!

Does the 13 tube transfusion ever happen?
Funny, this pic keeps coming up on this web page???

The Beverly Hillbillies began playing in reruns that night and the ones that you despise love that old show.

I am not saying that the GB tell lies. It's very easy to get caught up in a style of speaking and writing as if we know we must be right and that only our current explanation is correct.
Doctrines are NOT promoted because a member of the GB (or Writing Dept) is thinking about whether a certain doctrine might be right or wrong, it's just that they have already accepted that it MUST be right because people before them presented it as if it must be right. If we are "puppets" that follow along without questioning, then so have been most members of the GB. They follow the persons who came before because they never saw a reason not to. If our doctrines are obviously correct about Trinity, Hellfire, Neutrality, New Earth, Preaching, God's Name, etc., then our more questionable doctrines (Blood, Chronology, Higher Education, etc) must also be absolutely right by default. The GB would have no more reason to question them than we would. What makes some doctrines finally get questioned and corrected is almost always the inability to answer a specific question about that doctrine that gets sent to the Society.
But sometimes such questions are TOO disturbing and will not be dealt with, except by looking for reasons to punish the person who asked, and I would have to admit that this reaction is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is how some humans have always reacted to those who would question established traditions.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of humility to make changes to long-established ("deeply entrenched") doctrines. It doesn't mean that we or they (GB) were lying when we accepted and promoted the former doctrines. We just weren't "making sure of all things." More and more changes of this nature have been made in the last 10 to 20 years, and they are tending to clear up many of the doctrinal inconsistencies.

I am not saying that the GB tell lies. It's very easy to get caught up in a style of speaking and writing as if we know we must be right and that only our current explanation is correct.
Doctrines are NOT promoted because a member of the GB (or Writing Dept) is thinking about whether a certain doctrine might be right or wrong, it's just that they have already accepted that it MUST be right because people before them presented it as if it must be right. If we are "puppets" that follow along without questioning, then so have been most members of the GB. They follow the persons who came before because they never saw a reason not to. If our doctrines are obviously correct about Trinity, Hellfire, Neutrality, New Earth, Preaching, God's Name, etc., then our more questionable doctrines (Blood, Chronology, Higher Education, etc) must also be absolutely right by default. The GB would have no more reason to question them than we would. What makes some doctrines finally get questioned and corrected is almost always the inability to answer a specific question about that doctrine that gets sent to the Society.
But sometimes such questions are TOO disturbing and will not be dealt with, except by looking for reasons to punish the person who asked, and I would have to admit that this reaction is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is how some humans have always reacted to those who would question established traditions.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of humility to make changes to long-established ("deeply entrenched") doctrines. It doesn't mean that we or they (GB) were lying when we accepted and promoted the former doctrines. We just weren't "making sure of all things." More and more changes of this nature have been made in the last 10 to 20 years, and they are tending to clear up many of the doctrinal inconsistencies.

I am not saying that the GB tell lies. It's very easy to get caught up in a style of speaking and writing as if we know we must be right and that only our current explanation is correct.
Doctrines are NOT promoted because a member of the GB (or Writing Dept) is thinking about whether a certain doctrine might be right or wrong, it's just that they have already accepted that it MUST be right because people before them presented it as if it must be right. If we are "puppets" that follow along without questioning, then so have been most members of the GB. They follow the persons who came before because they never saw a reason not to. If our doctrines are obviously correct about Trinity, Hellfire, Neutrality, New Earth, Preaching, God's Name, etc., then our more questionable doctrines (Blood, Chronology, Higher Education, etc) must also be absolutely right by default. The GB would have no more reason to question them than we would. What makes some doctrines finally get questioned and corrected is almost always the inability to answer a specific question about that doctrine that gets sent to the Society.
But sometimes such questions are TOO disturbing and will not be dealt with, except by looking for reasons to punish the person who asked, and I would have to admit that this reaction is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is how some humans have always reacted to those who would question established traditions.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of humility to make changes to long-established ("deeply entrenched") doctrines. It doesn't mean that we or they (GB) were lying when we accepted and promoted the former doctrines. We just weren't "making sure of all things." More and more changes of this nature have been made in the last 10 to 20 years, and they are tending to clear up many of the doctrinal inconsistencies.

I am sad. This is not just for the loss of this particular book, but also because it reminds me of the saddest episode in the history of Bethel (in my opinion, of course).
There are two books in my opinion that best managed to encapsulate the entire meaning of Christianity and our entire purpose as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Admittedly, I am somewhat of a critical reader and often find things that are easy to disagree with, at least slightly. Usually, it's when our publications make a statement that is not necessarily wrong, but could easily need to be updated in a future publication. This might be for any of the following reasons:
Some explanation was worded as if the meaning of a thing can only be understood in one specific way when in fact the Biblical evidence makes it clear that there are other possible meanings and our conclusion is really speculation. Or when a quote is used but it was misunderstood or misused by the writer. Or when a historical event is referred to as evidence of something when the event didn't really occur exactly as was stated. Or when a concept isn't actually explained or defined correctly. Or when examples are used that can easily become obsolete, out of date, and might later require a new explanation if trends change. Or when a specific date or chronological system is used without Biblical or secular support. (Our date might be correct in those cases, but since we sometimes make use of an alternate dating system without Biblical or secular support, I always feel that at least an explanation of our assumptions should be included, so people know why we give a different date from 99.9 percent of encyclopedias, for example.) But these two particular favorite books, I have always been able to read and re-read without ever noticing anything of the type that might have to be changed in the future. There are no explanations that state that something MUST mean this or that. They are simply full of general explanations of the words of James and Peter in the context of the original meaning to the first centuries C.E., and how these Biblical concepts might be applied to Christians in our era, too. They don't try to brag about our modern-day history. They don't try to prove things about topics that tend to need constant clarification. They are merely about ideas that strengthen our faith and love for Jehovah and Jesus. They always make me appreciate the true value of the Bible itself, and the way that our publications can emphasize the Bible instead of our organizational accomplishments. (There are several wonderful articles in the Watchtower that I love for the same reasons that I love these two books, but these books stand out from most of our other books in this regard.)
So, of course, the books are "Commentary on the Letter of James" and the "Commentary on the Letters of Peter" (which was finally named "Choosing the Best Way of Life"). The first was the only book study book that we didn't study at the Congregation Bible Study (the "Book Study"), although most of the book was reviewed in a series of 15-minute "Instruction Talks." It was supposed to be a "Book Study" book, but a decision was made to replace this 1979 book for the "Book Study" with "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached" (which reviewed the Society's modern-day history under Russell and Rutherford). That was a 1973 book which we were to study for a second time.
This book "Commentary on the Letter of James" was not dropped because it's old. The Watchtower Library includes the books going back to 1971, and still includes 14 books that came out prior to this one. Even the obsolete "Word Government" book (1977), covering parts of Daniel, is still included. The 1973 "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" book had many errors already known about even in 1979, prior to the decision to study it again, and it's still available now. In fact, the "James Commentary" is the only one that has been dropped. I just checked the 2006 WT CD, the 2012, 2014 and 2015. They all still have it along with all the others from the 1970's that are still available now. It was even dropped from the online library at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/56220.  All the other books from the 1970's are still at wol.jw.org.
I didn't check exactly when it disappeared. You might still have had it on the 2016/17 WT Library "CD" download, but it could have been removed if you accepted the regular online update.

For an actor, timing is very important!

To keep a more complete set of references for this topic, we also have the Jan 15, 2014 WT:
*** w14 1/15 pp. 30-31 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS AWAY
14 There is yet a third reason for confidence. What has developed among God’s people points to the nearness of the end. For example, prior to the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven, a group of faithful anointed ones were actively serving God. When some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 did not come about, what did they do? Most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution and kept right on serving Jehovah. Over the years, most—if not all—of those anointed ones have faithfully completed their earthly course.
15 In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.—Rom. 8:14-17.
16 The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 give us confidence that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation. This should add to our conviction that little time remains before the King of God’s Kingdom acts to destroy the wicked and usher in a righteous new world.—2 Pet. 3:13.
And, as was already mentioned Brother Splane, in the September 2015 JW Broadcasting talk, provided a chart. Then this same chart was referenced just a few months later by a later JW Broadcasting speaker, Brother Kenneth Flodin, who said that it was "masterfully explained" by Brother Splane and that he did such a "beautiful job" that he wasn't going to attempt to repeat it, so he just replayed the video of Splane, and then called it a "very clear explanation."
 

@Eoin Joyce quoted one of the first real hints of the overlapping generation doctrine from the Feb 15, 2008 WT (above).
Above, I also quoted a WT QFR that mentioned overlapping generations from the Sept. 1, 1952 WT, and it showed why overlapping generations do not effect the length of the generation Jesus spoke about.
After the 2008 article, there was also a more recent mention of the some of the same points repeated in the April 15, 2010 WT, and this 2010 article was the first to explicitly create a generation that is defined by the overlap of two specific groups: One group saw the start of an event, and another group could not have seen the start of that event, but would see the start of a different event, not more than two lifespans from the first event:
*** w10 4/15 pp. 10-11 pars. 13-14 Holy Spirit’s Role in the Outworking of Jehovah’s Purpose ***
13 Third, holy spirit is at work in bringing Bible truths to light. (Prov. 4:18) This magazine has long been used by “the faithful and discreet slave” as the primary channel for dispensing increased light. (Matt. 24:45) For example, consider our understanding of those who make up “this generation” mentioned by Jesus. (Read Matthew 24:32-34.) To what generation did Jesus refer? The article “Christ’s Presence—What Does It Mean to You?” explained that Jesus was referring, not to the wicked, but to his disciples, who were soon to be anointed with holy spirit. Jesus’ anointed followers, both in the first century and in our day, would be the ones who would not only see the sign but also discern its meaning—that Jesus “is near at the doors.”
14 What does this explanation mean to us? Although we cannot measure the exact length of “this generation,” we do well to keep in mind several things about the word “generation”: It usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end. (Ex. 1:6) How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about “this generation”? He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end. The fulfillment of the various features of the sign clearly indicates that the tribulation must be near. By maintaining your sense of urgency and keeping on the watch, you show that you are keeping up with advancing light and following the leadings of holy spirit.—Mark 13:37.
I included the paragraph that drops plenty of hints that this new idea is evidence of holy spirit at work, and that it represents the light of Bible truth, and that the source is the "faithful and discreet slave." This introduction stands together with the explanation in paragraph 14 that we don't know the length, that it "usually" refers to a given description, and that Jesus "evidently" refers to a version of what it "usually" refers to. The only points that are given with "sureness" are these:
The generation had a beginning It will have an end The fulfillment of various features of the sign indicates that the tribulation must be near Note that it isn't by believing in a potential 'two-lifespan' generation that we are keeping up with advancing light and the leadings of holy spirit, but only explcitly by maintaining a sense of urgency, and keeping on the watch. As Christians we would do this with or without the two-lifespan generation, based on other scriptures, for example:
(2 Timothy 4:1, 2) . . .: 2 Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times. . .
(Ephesians 5:15, 16) 15 So keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons, 16 making the best use of your time, because the days are wicked.
(2 Peter 3:11, 12) . . .Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah. . .
 

OK.
As was already pointed out, we have always known that a generation can include overlapping contemporaries, but these contemporaries belong to another generation. The Watchtower has said that "three or even four generations" may overlap at the same time. So the overlapping explanation is not about how to define a single "generation that will not pass away." My own issue with the current explanation has more to do with the disrespect it shows to Jesus, in trying to twist up the meaning of language so much that we have inadvertently tried to present him as some kind of trickster.
*** w52 9/1 pp. 542-543 Questions From Readers ***
Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?—G. P., Liberia.
Webster’s unabridged dictionary gives, in part, this definition of generation: “The average lifetime of man, or the ordinary period of time at which one rank follows another, or father is succeeded by child; an age. A generation is usually taken to be about 33 years.” But the Bible is not so specific. It gives no number of years for a generation. And in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32, the texts mentioning the generation the question refers to, we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster’s does in its 33-year approximation; but rather more like Webster’s first-quoted definition, “the average lifetime of man.” Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping. (Ps. 78:4; 145:4) Before the Noachian flood the life span was hundreds of years. Down through the centuries since, it has varied, and even now is different in different countries. The Bible does speak of a man’s days as being threescore and ten or fourscore years; but it assigns no specific number of years to a generation.—Ps. 90:10.
Even if it did, we could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit that is sufficiently definite for all present practical purposes. Some persons living A.D. 1914 when the series of foretold events began will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon. All the events will come within the span of a generation. There are hundreds of millions of persons living now that were living in 1914, and many millions of these persons could yet live a score or more years. Just when the lives of the majority of them will be cut short by Armageddon we cannot say.
 
 

Actually, Acts 1:7 says there is something wrong with us banging on about the generation. It says it's none of our concern. It's not in our domain. Knowledge of the times and seasons does not belong to us. It belongs to the Father alone. Anyone who tries is overstepping their authority.
(Acts 1:7) . . .” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction [NWT fn: "authority"].
This is why Paul could say that we don't need anything written to us about chronology:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1) Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.

For an actor, timing is very important!

I did not know this.  
It also makes me want to dig the James commentary out again.

For an actor, timing is very important!

Laughing at the idea that we are 'helping Jehovah' by setting aside a specific, pre-planned amount of money in advance every month so that we don't forget to donate -- and automatically get a receipt. "Because this way, I can help Jehovah every month" a sister says at 2min20sec into the tutorial video.
We can help Jehovah's people, help Jehovah's organization, even help Jehovah's "cause" in a sense. But only persons who have an extreme ego, or who confuse Jehovah with the organization believe they are "helping Jehovah." 
*** w91 12/1 p. 31 How Can We Repay Jehovah? ***
Such giving is not restricted to a tithe, or tenth, and there may be circumstances in which an individual is moved to give more to advance Kingdom interests.—Matthew 6:33. The apostle Paul said: “Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7) If you give cheerfully and generously in support of true worship, you will fare well, for a wise proverb says: “Honor Jehovah with your valuable things and with the firstfruits of all your produce. Then your stores of supply will be filled with plenty; and with new wine your own press vats will overflow.”—Proverbs 3:9, 10. We cannot enrich the Most High. To him belong all the gold and silver, the beasts on a thousand mountains, and valuable things without number. (Psalm 50:10-12) Never can we repay God for all his benefits to us. But we can show our deep appreciation for him and for the privilege of rendering sacred service to his praise. And we can be sure that rich blessings flow to those who give liberally to promote pure worship and honor the loving and generous God, Jehovah.—2 Corinthians 9:11.  

I am sad. This is not just for the loss of this particular book, but also because it reminds me of the saddest episode in the history of Bethel (in my opinion, of course).
There are two books in my opinion that best managed to encapsulate the entire meaning of Christianity and our entire purpose as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Admittedly, I am somewhat of a critical reader and often find things that are easy to disagree with, at least slightly. Usually, it's when our publications make a statement that is not necessarily wrong, but could easily need to be updated in a future publication. This might be for any of the following reasons:
Some explanation was worded as if the meaning of a thing can only be understood in one specific way when in fact the Biblical evidence makes it clear that there are other possible meanings and our conclusion is really speculation. Or when a quote is used but it was misunderstood or misused by the writer. Or when a historical event is referred to as evidence of something when the event didn't really occur exactly as was stated. Or when a concept isn't actually explained or defined correctly. Or when examples are used that can easily become obsolete, out of date, and might later require a new explanation if trends change. Or when a specific date or chronological system is used without Biblical or secular support. (Our date might be correct in those cases, but since we sometimes make use of an alternate dating system without Biblical or secular support, I always feel that at least an explanation of our assumptions should be included, so people know why we give a different date from 99.9 percent of encyclopedias, for example.) But these two particular favorite books, I have always been able to read and re-read without ever noticing anything of the type that might have to be changed in the future. There are no explanations that state that something MUST mean this or that. They are simply full of general explanations of the words of James and Peter in the context of the original meaning to the first centuries C.E., and how these Biblical concepts might be applied to Christians in our era, too. They don't try to brag about our modern-day history. They don't try to prove things about topics that tend to need constant clarification. They are merely about ideas that strengthen our faith and love for Jehovah and Jesus. They always make me appreciate the true value of the Bible itself, and the way that our publications can emphasize the Bible instead of our organizational accomplishments. (There are several wonderful articles in the Watchtower that I love for the same reasons that I love these two books, but these books stand out from most of our other books in this regard.)
So, of course, the books are "Commentary on the Letter of James" and the "Commentary on the Letters of Peter" (which was finally named "Choosing the Best Way of Life"). The first was the only book study book that we didn't study at the Congregation Bible Study (the "Book Study"), although most of the book was reviewed in a series of 15-minute "Instruction Talks." It was supposed to be a "Book Study" book, but a decision was made to replace this 1979 book for the "Book Study" with "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached" (which reviewed the Society's modern-day history under Russell and Rutherford). That was a 1973 book which we were to study for a second time.
This book "Commentary on the Letter of James" was not dropped because it's old. The Watchtower Library includes the books going back to 1971, and still includes 14 books that came out prior to this one. Even the obsolete "Word Government" book (1977), covering parts of Daniel, is still included. The 1973 "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" book had many errors already known about even in 1979, prior to the decision to study it again, and it's still available now. In fact, the "James Commentary" is the only one that has been dropped. I just checked the 2006 WT CD, the 2012, 2014 and 2015. They all still have it along with all the others from the 1970's that are still available now. It was even dropped from the online library at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/56220.  All the other books from the 1970's are still at wol.jw.org.
I didn't check exactly when it disappeared. You might still have had it on the 2016/17 WT Library "CD" download, but it could have been removed if you accepted the regular online update.

As described, such a quick and violent flood would wash away the topsoil, and this would make it the worst time to plant, and for many years into the future.

....when there's no rhyme or reason

It's a good job some of us still have the WT CDs! And I think I have the actual books somewhere in the basement. I remember the James book, my mom used it as a second book to study with a Bible study. Believe it or not , I have NEVER read it. So now of course I will have to!

Sad. 
Maybe @Atlantis4 might still have PDF copies of them?

I am sad. This is not just for the loss of this particular book, but also because it reminds me of the saddest episode in the history of Bethel (in my opinion, of course).
There are two books in my opinion that best managed to encapsulate the entire meaning of Christianity and our entire purpose as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Admittedly, I am somewhat of a critical reader and often find things that are easy to disagree with, at least slightly. Usually, it's when our publications make a statement that is not necessarily wrong, but could easily need to be updated in a future publication. This might be for any of the following reasons:
Some explanation was worded as if the meaning of a thing can only be understood in one specific way when in fact the Biblical evidence makes it clear that there are other possible meanings and our conclusion is really speculation. Or when a quote is used but it was misunderstood or misused by the writer. Or when a historical event is referred to as evidence of something when the event didn't really occur exactly as was stated. Or when a concept isn't actually explained or defined correctly. Or when examples are used that can easily become obsolete, out of date, and might later require a new explanation if trends change. Or when a specific date or chronological system is used without Biblical or secular support. (Our date might be correct in those cases, but since we sometimes make use of an alternate dating system without Biblical or secular support, I always feel that at least an explanation of our assumptions should be included, so people know why we give a different date from 99.9 percent of encyclopedias, for example.) But these two particular favorite books, I have always been able to read and re-read without ever noticing anything of the type that might have to be changed in the future. There are no explanations that state that something MUST mean this or that. They are simply full of general explanations of the words of James and Peter in the context of the original meaning to the first centuries C.E., and how these Biblical concepts might be applied to Christians in our era, too. They don't try to brag about our modern-day history. They don't try to prove things about topics that tend to need constant clarification. They are merely about ideas that strengthen our faith and love for Jehovah and Jesus. They always make me appreciate the true value of the Bible itself, and the way that our publications can emphasize the Bible instead of our organizational accomplishments. (There are several wonderful articles in the Watchtower that I love for the same reasons that I love these two books, but these books stand out from most of our other books in this regard.)
So, of course, the books are "Commentary on the Letter of James" and the "Commentary on the Letters of Peter" (which was finally named "Choosing the Best Way of Life"). The first was the only book study book that we didn't study at the Congregation Bible Study (the "Book Study"), although most of the book was reviewed in a series of 15-minute "Instruction Talks." It was supposed to be a "Book Study" book, but a decision was made to replace this 1979 book for the "Book Study" with "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached" (which reviewed the Society's modern-day history under Russell and Rutherford). That was a 1973 book which we were to study for a second time.
This book "Commentary on the Letter of James" was not dropped because it's old. The Watchtower Library includes the books going back to 1971, and still includes 14 books that came out prior to this one. Even the obsolete "Word Government" book (1977), covering parts of Daniel, is still included. The 1973 "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" book had many errors already known about even in 1979, prior to the decision to study it again, and it's still available now. In fact, the "James Commentary" is the only one that has been dropped. I just checked the 2006 WT CD, the 2012, 2014 and 2015. They all still have it along with all the others from the 1970's that are still available now. It was even dropped from the online library at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/56220.  All the other books from the 1970's are still at wol.jw.org.
I didn't check exactly when it disappeared. You might still have had it on the 2016/17 WT Library "CD" download, but it could have been removed if you accepted the regular online update.

*** w17 June p. 8 par. 17 Jehovah Provides Comfort in All Our Trials ***
Before the Flood, Seth’s descendant Lamech worshipped Jehovah. That family man said of his son Noah: “[He] will bring us comfort from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that Jehovah has cursed.” That prophecy was fulfilled when the curse on the ground was lifted.
*** w13 8/1 p. 15 He Was Kept “Safe With Seven Others” ***
God lifted the curse on the ground. Back in the days of the rebellion of Adam and Eve, God had pronounced that curse, making cultivation unusually difficult. Noah’s father, Lamech, had named his son Noah—probably meaning “Rest,” or “Consolation”—and had foretold that his son would lead mankind to a time of rest from that curse. Noah must have beamed when he learned that he would now see that prophecy fulfilled and that the earth would respond more readily to efforts to cultivate it. Little wonder that Noah soon took up farming!—Genesis 3:17, 18; 5:28, 29; 9:20.
*** w96 11/1 p. 8 par. 8 Look to Jehovah for Comfort ***
How relieved Noah and his family must have felt after the Flood as they came out of the ark onto a cleansed earth! How comforting to find that the curse on the ground had been lifted, making agricultural activity so much easier! Indeed, Lamech’s prophecy proved true, and Noah lived up to the meaning of his name. (Genesis 8:21)
So evidently the idea is that the ground in Eden was fantastic, and the ground around the garden was supposed to be ready for fertile and fruitful cultivation as the human family expanded. But then God cursed the ground and it became more difficult. And then the Flood, (Après à fois le déluge. ..) after which it became much easier again to cultivate the ground, but not perfect as in Eden. I don't recall the animal theory ever being spelled out relative to this curse on the ground.

Yes. That's a part of it. Note the even the "free page" here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561026?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Even some early "Church Fathers" thought that these changes were being made to undermine Christianity, and opposed the revisions and their authors (mostly directed at Symacchus and Aquila).
What I was reading was from other sources but Wikipedia implies the same here in the entry about Symacchus:
Saint Jerome admired his style but faulted his translation in two areas important to Christians, saying that he substituted the Greek word neansis (woman) for parthenos (virgin) in Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 24:43.[13] Symmachus' Greek translation of the Pentateuch appeared in Origen's Hexapla,  . . . According to Eusebius Symmachus also wrote commentaries, then still extant, apparently written to counter the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew, . . . .